[ofa-general] RE: [ewg] [PATCH 0/9] RDMAoE - RDMA over Ethernet-- some procedural questions

[Ryan, Jim]

"Associated" is the strong form of the range you suggest. OFA is not in the spec creation biz. We look to other orgs to create the spec that we implement to.

Again, I'm trying to tell you what our bylaws tell us. Certainly they can be changed, and I'd never claim we followed them with 100% diligence

Jim 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Squyres [mailto:jsquyres at cisco.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:24 AM
To: Ryan, Jim
Cc: OpenFabrics EWG; OpenFabrics General
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] RE: [ewg] [PATCH 0/9] RDMAoE - RDMA over Ethernet-- some procedural questions

Understood -- and I'm not debating these questions in light of RDMAoE/ 
IBoE/whateveroE.

I'm asking how tightly these questions have been applied to all the  
other stacks in OFED.  For example, RDS, SRP, and verbs itself.  Are  
any of these published/standardized APIs other than the fact that  
they're in OFED?

What does it mean to have a standard body "associated" with a  
proposal?  Does "associated" mean that the proposal/API is a published  
standard in that standards body?  Or some weaker definition?




On Jun 16, 2009, at 12:37 PM, Ryan, Jim wrote:

> Jeff, thanks, I'll try to keep this as brief as possible and offer  
> more offline if anyone wants it:
> - The bylaws state the requirement for a standards body to be  
> associated with a proposal. It contains some examples, including the  
> IETF and the IBTA (and others)
>
> - I think it's fair to say there's some ambiguity around what a  
> "proposal" would consist of. That's part of the discussion I've  
> tried to get started in the past, unsuccessfully
>
> - The bylaws also say the Board can ID other such bodies as the need  
> is perceived
>
> - My best understanding is the IBTA is developing a spec that  
> addresses this area. Work has started, but I don't have a timeline  
> for delivery.
>
> An obvious concern to me is having code submitted prior to a spec  
> being agreed
>
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ewg-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:ewg-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org 
> ] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres
> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 9:25 AM
> To: OpenFabrics EWG; OpenFabrics General
> Subject: Re: [ofa-general] RE: [ewg] [PATCH 0/9] RDMAoE - RDMA over  
> Ethernet -- some procedural questions
>
> On Jun 15, 2009, at 9:54 PM, Ryan, Jim wrote:
>
> > - There was no standards body associated with the proposal.
> >
>
>
> Clarification question on this -- what exactly does this statement
> mean?  I ask because if you take that statement to the extreme, many
> things in OFED may not qualify.
>
> For example, the uDAPL software API is standardized, so I assume it's
> fine.  The iWARP and IB hardware layers are standardized, but are
> there standardized software APIs?  Specifically: the verbs software
> stack is not standardized by any standards body, is it?  (what is the
> exact definition of "standards body", anyway -- does consensus of OFED
> members count?)
>
> These may be naive questions (I don't follow these APIs at all), but
> is the RDS API standardized?  Is SRP?  Are the various tools that are
> shipped in OFED standardized?
>
> I'm sure we don't want to take all these things out of OFED, but some
> clarification of the rules might be useful.
>
> --
> Jeff Squyres
> Cisco Systems
>
> _______________________________________________
> ewg mailing list
> ewg at lists.openfabrics.org
> http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
>


-- 
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems